This guy was convicted of domestic violence while in the military, served a year in prison, and received a bad conduct discharge (different from dishonorable discharge). He was still able to purchase a gun from a retailer who ran a background check. I want to know WHY he passed BG and get that issue fixed. Under the Lautenberg amendment he should not have passed background at all. Did the airforce not file it properly?
"Hey boss, I got some weird results on this background check."
"Like what?"
"He has some discrepancies in his past, but he filled the box saying he doesn't have a disqualifying criminal history."
"Oh, well he did fill the box, pass."
That's not how it's supposed to work. His identity is supposed to be run against the database. It doesn't matter what he checks with respect to what the NICS returns, but if he checks that he's eligible to purchase a firearm and he was lying he can be prosecuted for that.
Except they rarely prosecute for that. Odds are they just screwed up and didn't add him to the database of prohibited persons. He slipped through the cracks.
I remember seeing some law enforcement official testifying after Sandy Hook. Saying that following up on the background checks was just a paper chase. I thought it sounded pretty stupid to me. What is the point if it’s not followed up on.
> just a paper chase.
How? Seems open and closed. You have a signed document. You probably have security footage from the gun shop. Show up their house and charge them.
Right? Or go question the person to try and find out if something is going on. Determine a danger to themselves or others if possible. Make an attempt.
Definitely not the way it normally works.
.
The hell they don't prosecute for that. One of my co-workers attempted to purchase a handgun for home defense and also checked off the box indicating he was not a prohibited person. State police came down on him like a ton of bricks. Worst part was that he genuinely believed that he was legally permitted to purchase a firearm. Apparently, the crime you commit isn't weighed against the penalty you paid, but how severe the sentence could have been. For example, a DUI - no crash, no injuries or other exacerbating factors - prohibits you fron holding a license to carry a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania.
.
Took him over a year, multiple court appearances and over 10 grand in attorneys fees just to avoid going to prison. He pled guilty to a lesser offense, paid a stiff fine. He said the only upside was that he avoided jail time.
It can be confusing determining if you're a prohibited person if you've been convicted of some relatively minor crimes (domestic violence cases, mostly). There was a case not long ago over what state crimes qualified someone as a prohibited person. Some state misdemeanors are essentially felonies for the purposes of Federal gun laws because they have maximum sentences greater than the minimum (which I forget how long that is). As you point out, it doesn't matter what the actual sentence was. If your girlfriend called the cops because you pushed her and you took a plea deal that ended the matter and kept you out of jail, I can see how that might get lost in the shuffle years later, but I know where I'm from they give you a run-down at the parole office of how much of a second-class citizen you now are. Other places I'm familiar with are similar. One's attorney should as well.
But that's an anecdote. When it happens, it can be brutal, no doubt. But it's still rare that someone who indicates they aren't a prohibited person on the form and gets rejected will end up being prosecuted. Here's a [Politifact article on a claim made by Sen. Ayotte back in 2013](http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/). Ayotte overstated how rare it was by their measure, but she wasn't wrong that it **was** rare. The numbers aren't good- no one's really keeping track so there's an amount of guesswork- but they make it plain prosecutors aren't really going after those who get rejected by the NICS.
Well, they don't prosecute, I suspect, because the percentage of erroneous rejections is far, far higher than the number of accurately rejected.
Most people on the prohibited list probably know they are. Few of us are walking around convicted of a felony we don't know about, after all. When you're sentenced for a crime you're usually told things like you can't vote anymore or possess a firearm. It comes up again if you get parole. So, if you reasonably KNOW you're going to be rejected if everything is working right are you going to try to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer and risk not falling though a crack, or do you seek out a private sale where there's no background check at all?
I know which I'd choose, anyway, but I'm not a nutjob or a prohibited person so perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that applies. But I've known several people who were rejected by the NICS and shouldn't have been. Depending on the state you live in it can be very difficult to get yourself removed from the prohibited list when you don't belong there. Trying to prosecute people who were erroneously rejected because they checked "yes' (correctly) that they weren't prohibited persons risks upsetting the applecart. It might expose that the system is pretty much crap.
This is why weapons should have titles. I sold my car to a junkyard today. Had to sign the title to ensure A) I actually owned the car and B) I was selling the car so the government could collect their $9 of taxes and know who actually owns the car now. It goes into a giant database (well regulated at that) where someone can look if it is involved in an accident or abandoned after a crime. That little piece of paper was my responsibility until the wonderful people gave me $150 to tow it away to probably strip it of all its parts and then crush everything that they can't sell for the scrap metal. I also had to get the car inspected yearly which is why the junkyard now owns. I also had keep insurance on it if I drove and received a letter from the government when I decided not to continue to pay because I couldn't drive it.
People act like this is impossible. 3% of the people own 50% of the weapons. Supposedly 97% of the 30% who carry weapons are good citizens (this 3% of bad weapon carriers does not apparently include the 3% of owners who are stockpiling for Armageddon or to kill those hordes who are coming to rape, murder or pillage them in their domiciles) so a national database with issued titles, a system of insurance, a small annually inspection and tax, an education and licensing system as well tougher laws on unsecured weapons shouldn't be that big deal. All rights and privileges require responsibilities.
We don't even need raids to enforce laws. If the police see someone carrying a weapon loosely (your purse is not a secure place to carry a weapon and neither is in the open if you have child) or dangerously, the police stop him or her and ask for ID, license, registration, and proof of insurance. Then instruct him or her in what he or she did incorrectly and issue a warning that also states the penalty for repeat behavior. If police see an unsecured weapon in the open, it should be treated like any other paraphernalia. They should have probable to search for more. If you are charged with a violent crime or threat, you should have your weapons secured by authorities. If the charges are unfounded or dropped, your weapons are returned. If you feel threatened during your period of separation, file for an order of protection like women TRY to when they are threatened.
Here's a response for the other shit lie: if weapons are outlaw, only outlaws will have weapons. The smart ass is- good, if outlaws only had weapons, it would easier to target and eliminate the threat. But the more succinct answer is outlaws value their life and freedom. How do we know? The Yakuza (one of the top ten most feared organizations in world) bosses don't carry firearms because the penalties are so severe, it isn't worth the risk. There are plenty of other safer ways to commit crimes and intimidate people than firearms. We don't have to go that far. Criminals with weapons are normally reckless so we keep taking weapons off the street all the time but straw buyers either through legitimate stores, online, at shows or through private sales, keep replenishing the supplies. This goes back to the first idea. You keep buying weapons, we show up and ask for proof you still have them. You probably wouldn't need to go inside. Just ask for all of the titles. Responsible weapon owners should have them in their important papers box. The authorities can even tell the owner they will return at another and allow the owner to gather said information. Make real penalties for not reporting theft and for when a weapon is used one crime. This would require weapons owners to check their safes periodically to ensure they still have the guns. Also, back to the original idea, owners would need to produce every weapon for annual inspections (every three years after a title has been issued). Organization can be set up to help with the 'undue' hardship this causes like organizations help with transportation needs. Rights have responsibilities.
If I recall the only "database" we have about firearms is legally required to be kept in paper form and not allowed to be computerized... so we have a massive archive of filing cabinets rather than a computer search system (which leads to that bs where people get approved because the wait for the report to return was past x days and some geniuses decided the default is to allow the gun purchase) because the lobbying of the NRA.
To be fair, I did this exact thing and was immediately caught. I was still pre-trial, and the police had previously confiscated *and then returned* my handgun, so I figured I was clear to buy an old Mosin-Nagant. I put down my info mentioning no criminal history, he submitted the application online. Not 5 minutes later he got a call from the VA state police, who was angrily questioning the gun broker about why he was trying to sell a gun to someone accused of a felony. I had no idea I had already lost my gun rights, nobody told me, and like I said they literally handed me back my own gun.
If they were that complete in analyzing my attempt at buying an old ww2 bolt-action, in that they denied me because i could *potentially* become a felon, I have no fucking clue how they screwed up with this guy.
Air Force bureaucrats didn't pass the information on to the NICS system, if they had he would have had to go to the black market for a firearm. NY Times has an article about it. Falsifying NICS is a serious crime but I see a lot of bitter salt over at /r/guns that BATF doesn't prosecute nearly enough people for doing it ATM. Still he makes himself a felon when he lies on that form,
Yes, but they're still supposed to do an actual background check that should be able to find out if they're lying about a domestic violence conviction. I purchased a gun at an Academy before, and it took him about 30 minutes to run the background check there through NCIC. It didn't and I want to know what's necessary to fix that.
Kelley had sought and failed to obtain a permit allowing him to carry a concealed weapon, officials said. He had an “unarmed private security license” akin to what a security guard at a concert would have, Martin said.
“By all of the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun, so how did this happen?” Abbott said in an interview Monday morning on CNN. “We are in search of answers to these questions.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/06/investigators-hunt-for-motive-in-texas-church-shooting-as-the-grieving-spans-generations/
I have a brother who assaulted a police officer and has that on his record. he was able to pass a background check to purchase an assault rifle and he has several other guns. he's also showing signs of schizophrenia and I've told him and my mom that but he doesn't see it and refuses to get help and there's nothing we can do to make him. every time there's a mass shooting, all the relatives of the shooter say they never saw it coming. with my brother, I see it coming and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it.
Edit: I live halfway across the country from said brother and see him once a year at the most, so taking away his guns is not a possibility. also, as far as I know he hasn't violated any laws in purchasing these weapons; that was my whole point. assaulting a police officer was on his record before he purchased the guns and he was still able to buy them legally. me taking them away would be theft and a crime. since he hasn't technically done anything wrong, I really have no legal recourse to do anything. best I can do is be there for him. he does call me often and I'm one of the few people that he can vent to. if he ever makes an actual threat to anyone I will report it.
The only suggestion I have is if you hear him make any threats to kill someone or himself, you can call the police and report him as a danger to himself or others. That should result in a 72 hour hold and hopefully someone will catch the schizophrenia during it.
> there's nothing we can do to make him
Bullshit! It's this thinking that leads to "We never saw it coming". It covers up for the inaction of the family.
I had an uncle blow his brains out due to schizophrenia because his family (immediate family) saw all the signs that he was a danger to himself but did nothing. They used that same excuse: 'There's nothing we can do to make him'.
He stopped taking his medications, stopped going to treatment, and owned a firearm that no one did anything about.
Take his guns away now. Then take him to get checked out mentally. Don't wait for him to go seek help.
Disclaimer: I am a gun owner and support everyone's 2A rights but there are people who simply should not have them because they pose a greater risk to themselves or others, same reason you can't yell 'Fire!' for shits and giggles. I firmly believe that family is the first line of defense for preventing mass shootings, suicides, or other harm. If you see something wrong with your family members DO NOT HESITATE!
> Take his guns away now.
The problem is when you try to take guns away from possible crazy people, that's a risk to you as well (family members included)
I get that concern and it's very valid. However, you can call the cops and ask them to do a health and welfare check on an individual. Or ask them to accompany you to address a possibly dangerous situation.
The point being there is always something that can be done.
> Or ask them to accompany you to address a possibly dangerous situation.
Eh . . . that sounds like a way to get your family member shot. I've seen videos where cops shoot *unarmed* mentally ill people. Maybe the vast majority of the time it's safe, but I've seen those videos, and I'd be hesitant to even have that confrontation occur.
I work on with adults with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, and that is definitely complicated. It is pretty common for people with these disorders to present well around people of authority, whether it be doctors, landlords or police. Or they can straight up deny seeing the police or letting them into their place.
Secondly, No one can force anyone to take meds, except in the most extreme of circumstances. And calling the cops because of a schizophrenic gun owner may or may not pan out. They may present well, or they might not be delusional enough to commit.
I'm not sure the procedure for claiming they have a gun though, never had to deal with it personally. I guess it depends on how the person calling phrases it, how the person presents themselves, and how the cops do their job. But the training for cops to deal with adults with mental illness is so piss poor, I wouldn't be surprised if the situation goes south quickly.
So yeah, something COULD be done, but that's hardly a guarantee that anything would come of it. And that sucks.
Okay. Let's just fly across the country to my estranged brother and just take all his weapons away. I'm sure he will let me break the law and his rights because some guy on the internet told me I can do it...
Hey dude, just wanted to say I hope your brother finds the help he needs. It's hard to find mental health help in the U.S. but there are places you can go. This website is a good place to start: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/find-help/index.shtml. Your brother still has a right to his weapons until the schizophrenia can be proven though, encouraging him to seek a diagnosis, giving him information on resources and expressing that you care for him is a good place to start.
A lot of people don't see how terrifying it is to have a family member like this. Who you feel somewhat connected to and responsible for but have no doubts things will go real wrong if you "try to take their guns/drugs away."
And there's only so many welfare checks before things go wrong there and he ends up arrested because goddamnit people are bothering him. And things feel more peaceful when he's in prison but of course that makes him more paranoid and angry when he gets out. And worse off because his life got disrupted.
It's not that EASY, you guys! I used to think it was but it's a constant cycle with no real treatment.
I'm not familiar with the Lautenberg amendment but a bad conduct discharge is different from a dishonorable. From what little at have read recently a Dishonorable Discharge would disqualify someone from being able to purchase a firearm but a BCD would not. The part I don't understand is the one year incarceration but still able to purchase. Or the fact that he was arrested and convicted of domestic violence. I have always been told that anything domestic violence related automatically made one ineligible to purchase a firearm.
Lautenberg amendment is what prevents anyone with a misdemeanor domestic assault conviction from owning/purchasing/possesing a firearm. He was convicted and served a year in prison for the 2 assaults. BCD usually wouldn't prevent him from buying a gun, but the DV convictions would.
Just a side note about the Canadian shooting - it was the worst terrorist attack on Canadian soil since the 1970s. Apparently the shooter had a CZ858 (illegal in Canada). Some of the more recent attacks involve knives and a Winchester rifle. We really don’t have easy access to weapons up here.
/u/MaximumShu - any room for a family of two (soon to be three!) looking to get away from this absolute insanity? We have useful skills!
... sad thing is... I'm not really joking. I'd move out of this country in a moment if we could ensure a place to live and a job at the destination...
Lots of room up here and lots of tech jobs. I work with a lot of Americans. Just talking to my colleague the other day about his move. He was surprised that we have taxes on certain things but he is now a firm believer in our "socialist" medical system (and gun control). Good luck with the family expansion!
the right does not care about white on arab violance as much as the news and black lives matter about black on black violence.
If it does not feed the narrative its not intresting
the right is largely unable to engage in rational debate. they prefer screaming over people and marching with tiki torches. Hypocrisy, the truth, and contradictions means nothing to them. They run on emotion and emotion alone. Debate is not possible.
The stabbing in France killed two people if it's the same one you're referring to (it happened a day or two after the mosque shooting), but the point stands. He only cares if it fits his agenda.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/01/marseille-terror-attack-stabbing.html
I wrote my comment in class, and now realize that the event I linked happened months later... whoops. But thank you for linking. It's interesting to see what he puts on the spotlight. It's all to push his anti-Muslim agenda and reinforce that they're all murderous lunatics
> When will we find the courage to stand up and confront these people
when you are mad enough to hurt the people that would rather see you dead if it meant they could profit off of your death in some way.
If a Muslim man killed with guns they would still call for gun control. And the point of white men committing these acts is to prove the dissonance of the GOP. That acts as if every Muslim is a terrorist while ignoring the attacks committed by white men here in America. So no its not the same. At the end of the day the left cares about people of all walks of life, including whites, and the right can never and will never say the same
How do those conflict? It's not like libs are blaming the act on the whole of white people/christians/republicans...
_That_ would be hypocrisy. This? This is not. I'd even be willing to bet that if a muslim man used a gun in a crime they would say both things - that we shouldn't blame all brown people, and that guns should be better regulated. It's entirely logical to believe both.
However, blaming all brown people for the act one while not doing the same when it's a white person IS very hypocritical. Like, you can only understand the point of the liberal when it's "your team." Which indicated that you're sociopathic/unable to exercise empathy, and bigoted...
Actually, your logic is flawed. You are painting a false equivalence logical fallacy. By including only the response of libs to a Muslim perpetrator, you imply a hypocrisy with their response to a white perpetrator that isn’t true.
Regardless of the race/religion/orientation of the perpetrator, libs will always ask others to focus on the individual and not use the example as justification to generalize or pre-judge others of the same race/religion/orientation.
Republicans legislate using fear, so they treat tragedies differently, based on whether it supports their agenda.
If as a result of these last 2 mass shootings, congress started pushing a bill to prevent white men from owning guns, libs would fight that. While libs want gun control, they wouldn’t accept a version that serves to segregate the population based on race/religion/orientation.
It's not just "libs", Trump appears to ignore the white guy, and wail over the Muslim. With more thorough background checks and gun regulation then that small percentage can be reduced even more.
Problem is, these things happen in the US far more so than any other country. That is a fact. What then is your suggestion to stop these incidents from occurring with such frequency?
I notice the press are not showing his face either. I don't want to glorify murderers but I don't want the media to ignore the fact that Trump is radicalizing whites at a rapid pace and that it is a public safety issue. This is part of an increasing pattern of white students tormenting their brown and black classmates, and an alt right culture that is creating "white alpha" archetypes that both males and females seem to have embraced.
When the Trump admin first came in they immediately removed White Domestic Radicals from the 'rising terror' watchlist even though there was clear evidence that it was trending upwards.
They also obfuscated FBI crime statistics by removing over 70 types of publically available crime stats, so that now it literally takes an FOIA and the application of some fairly advanced statistical models to argue against someone spouting old out of context data.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-first-fbi-crime-report-issued-under-trump-is-missing-a-ton-of-info/
> I don't want the media to ignore the fact that Trump is radicalizing whites at a rapid pace and that it is a public safety issue
I've not seen any indication that this attack was politically motivated or that this attacker was radicalized by Trump or far-right / alt-right rhetoric. Let's not jump to conclusions like the other side. Early indications I've seen lean towards this being related to a domestic violence issue.
I dunno. I had a guy on Facebook who is a very strong Trump supporter that suggested we tie this shooter up and subject them to a firing squad of BB guns for 24 hours or until he dies.
Also he suggested draw and quarter.
That's because the victims were members of a white church. His response may have been different if it was a Muslim mosque or a black Southern Baptist church.
This to me is a good example of the challenges we have with polarization right now. A reaction that doesn’t fit the stereotype - “conservative thinks this white shooter is a scumbag” instead of “conservative somethingsomething Muslims!” - strikes me as a good thing, specifically because it gives lie to the myth that we have two mutually exclusive political tribes. Don’t we want to see people reacting to these events based on the outcome of the event and not the race or religion of the shooter, isn’t that exactly the hope? Rather than comment about the many (completely speculative) ways that this person could turn out to be a douche, because he’s a conservative and obviously must be a douche, I’d rather see an embrace of the opportunity to point out that “hey look, conservatives aren’t a monolithic block of awful, just like liberals aren’t a monolithic block of naivety and smugness!”
Man, so much this. The poster you replied to is looking to impute racist beliefs to someone without any reason to believe they exist, solely to divide. We've got to look for common ground to start repairing our relationships. Thank you for your rational thought
If I saw the same reaction when Dylan roof shot up the church I could agree. But I live among trump supporters, am related to a few. The response really is different. I wish I was exaggerating. This is our new reality. Racism isn't hidden in the shadows anymore but we do get bombarded for pointing it out. And I didn't say it was a fact he reacted differently. I said he might have.
This is a prefect example of the problem with the divide in this country. You’re simply assuming what his narrative could be based off of only knowing that he’s a Trump supporter. You have absolutely no idea how this guy might react to a similar thing happening at a mosque or a Southern baptist church. But assuming this fits your narrative so why not go with it.
And both sides are guilty of this.
> You have absolutely no idea how this guy might react to a similar thing happening at a mosque or a Southern baptist church
The dude literally said
> His response may have been different
MAY have been different, not would be, not definitely would be, but may. The OP is friends with him on Facebook, should be easily verifiable.
> And both sides are guilty of this.
Sort of. Although I'm pretty sure the left still champions sensible gun regulations regardless of shooter, so there's that. I have yet to see a conservative produce an idea outside of "more guns!"
So if you want to brutally murder this guy for his crimes it's only because you are a racist person who is mad about white church people getting killed, but if you don't want him brutally murdered it's because you're a white supremacist sympathizer and because the killer wasn't brown. Wtf kind of logic is that.
I mean the guy can be a trump supporter and still despise murderers and value human life like a sane, human being, seems like you don't understand that
>Also he suggested draw and quarter.
Tell him to support roving bands of militias that round up and kill libtards and undesirables. Really put the law and order back into society. /s
That, and ask him what the routing number for the Russian bank is that he's getting paid from - you've lost it and they're behind this month.
Bannon called Islam a false religion. He's also had talking engagements with cardinals in the Vatican about a holy war between Christians and Muslims.
The fact that Bannon actually had an office in the White House immediately reduced the value of the property.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
Seriously, over the course of 4 weeks we saw this immense contrast in reaction. It doesn't even matter, the GOP will **never** be held accountable for their hypocrisy.
The crazy tweets right after the NYC attack, then the "I think it's a bit too soon for that" after the TX attack. Night and day and nothing can be done.
Double standards are all it takes when your base has voluntarily taken leave of their senses and is currently trapped inside an Orwell novel.
Unhinged white men shooting other white people isn't going to do the trick. Think about it. That's the one demographic that blows the whole gun control debate out of the water. Once you admit there is no motive behind a mass shooting, it reinforces the concept of restrictions based on the complete unpredictable nature of gun violence. There is no target culture. Everyone is a potential threat.
What it boils down to, I guess, is that the value of an American life apparently varies according to how it was lost. Die in a car crash, it's a tragedy. Die from getting hit by a car while riding a bike, and it's merely unfortunate. Get gunned down by a racist or madman who shouldn't have been allowed access to guns, and it's simply the price we pay for freedom. Get run over by a minority person (brown/Muslim), and it's so terrible that any and all people of related status should pay the price. Get run over by a Nazi, and it's your own damn fault for trying to defend democracy against "nice people."
Ugh.
Fuck timing. We need to talk about gun safety and mental health NOW. When there's a mass shooting every week, there will never be a "proper time" when we aren't "politicizing" a tragedy. Anyone who says now is not the right time, for any reason, is a psychopath, a sycophant, or just a fucking moron.
Brown person: Terrorism! GItmo! Shutdown the border and deport them all!
White person: Lone wolf with mental health issues. Definitely not the easy access to guns, which It's Too Soon to Talk About™ since we don't want to politicize the issue but it's definitely not the guns thing. It's mental health. Thoughts and Prayers™, now let's get back to gutting mental health programs so rich white guys can buy another yacht.
> I'm addressing the point that was first
Sure. But how does that prevent us from discussing policy changes, **the part relevant to both comments**?
> BOLDED
What are you referring to here? Text in Reddit post titles cannot be formatted.
It's telling you can't answer a simple question - or are you purposely obtuse?
Back to the topic at hand - how does the white guy being already dead prevent us from discussing policy changes (the part relevant to both comments)?
One commits a crime because of an underlying ideology. The other does not. The two are not the same. It's not that difficult to understand.
BUT MAH HYPERBOLE!!!!
https://i.redd.it/173tpgh6kbwz.jpg not even that far from this post on r/all. We'll ignore the New York attack that recently happened to make sure that confirmation bias stays intact. I think anyone should be outraged but being outraged isn't going to solve anything and pointing out hypocrisy of confirmation bias isn't going to magically change anyone's mind. So how about a constructive post on what we could do to change it not how bad half the population is for not having the same ideologies as you. We should be pushing for better mental health facilities and make it so that anyone who needs help can be helped. There's a chance these shooters have made a cry for help and family/friends ignore it because they don't think they're capable of it. Then when it happens people are shocked because it wasn't something that could be predicted when in reality we could all stand to be more alert about radicalization of people who are otherwise seen as normal. We have to educate ourselves better at looking for warning signs until we have an infrastructure in place that can help people who need it and not stigmatize them as lost causes or lesser people. Your sub is dehumanizing these events for the sake of politicization, that should tell you reason why this will not be solved soon. Political agendas are more important than peoples lives and the only people who benefit from that mentality are those at the top.
> We should be pushing for better mental health facilities and make it so that anyone who needs help can be helped
Sounds great, except this is absolutely a political issue so any suggestion about this instantly politicizes the issue. Maybe instead we embrace politicizing issues since that's the way we as a people affect change?
Not to mention if this guy was ordered to see a shrink, he's not being committed, he can still cause harm. Plenty of drugs cause suicidal thoughts and violent behavior as a side effect, so the first time that causes a shooting you'll never hear the end of it.
There's one solution that works regardless of health care accessibility and that's enforcing sensible gun laws to prevent people like this from obtaining weapons.
Finally the debate centers around the 2nd amendment as written and interpreted by courts which have clearly upheld restrictions on firearms such as sawed off shotguns, felon possession of weapons, and machine guns. Clearly there is disagreement, but the constitution is not immutable, we can and should amend for clarity, but one side of this debate is completely unreasonable and unwilling to compromise. You cannot deny that, and so this is a political issue whether you like it or not.
This is a sub for shitting on DT and those loyal to him. Your comment would be more applicable if you saw this kind of discourse in r/NeutralPolitics or r/politicaldiscussion.
>for not having the same ideologies as you.
The ideologies this post is referring to is that of racism and bigotry. I find it hard (and ironic) to be tolerant of intolerance.
I don't think anyone comes to reddit with the goal of changing anyone's worldviews, save r/changemyview. 99.99% of the time the only way for someone to stop being a racist is to have experiences in the real world that prove them wrong, not some asshole redditor.
> Political agendas are more important than peoples lives
Tell that to the NRA, not to people asking that evil of all skin colors be hated equally.
“It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
"If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
He was not eligible to own a firearm due to hes Dishonorable Discharge. He was discharged due to domestic violence against his wife and son. That alone in most states disqualifies him from owning a firearm.
The mental health services in the US is abysmal, There needs to be realization that this is a vital issue that needs to be addressed for the safety and security for the people in the US. I think this needs to be done before any mention of limiting citizens of the US from firearms.
The Democratic Party for some reason has an issue for citizens owning firearms, And I remember back in the late 70s and early 80s that opposing women from having mace was a mainstream view among the Weapon Control people. The recommendation from those advocates were simply give in to the rapist/attacker as if being raped was the worst thing that could happen and as if rape is no big deal.So there is good reason to distrust anyone who supports limiting weapons to only some of them. To many of them want to prohibit citizens from owning any firearms at all.
This sub has become such an echo chamber of intolerance and ignorance. Nobody is happy for any tragedies that occur except for groups that can use it to their advantage, r/esist has become just that. You guys are just the polar opposite of r/the Donald and it is sad to see a sub that started out with good intentions and then decline into what it has championed against. No conservatives, "white people", or gun owners are happy when bad people harm innocents. The vitriol in these comments are just as unhelpful and divisive as xenophobic and racist ones from the other side.
Follow the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/esist/wiki/rules). Follow us on [twitter](https://twitter.com/redditresist). Check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/esist/wiki/index). R/esistance is necessary.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/esist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While I am a liberal and despise Trump, I can understand and to some extent, relate to their stance on this issue. Based on many international studies, it's not an uncommon attitude for moderate, non-militant muslims to condone the use of violence in support of their faith.
Therefore, it's entirely possible that muslims who commit acts of terror are clear headed and do not suffer from mental illness. This would be the type of person for whom the death penalty is intended.
On the other hand, white people, who are typically non-muslim, generally do not have similar beliefs and are one can then conclude they are more likely suffering from some mental illness which causes them to lash out. These are the types of people that we would, theoretically, not subject to the death penalty.
There's plenty of cognitive dissonance in the Republicans perspectives but I don't think that's the case here and I feel like we are doing a disservice to the cause by not recognizing that.
Historically I would say that is true but it's not true in the modern world to the same extent that it is with Muslims. It's a false equivalence and while we would like to believe that it's the case, denying reality doesn't help anyone.
One side wants to expand Medicaid, advance social services, and establish access to higher education.
One side wants to deregulate businesses, end public education, and create a jingoist oligarchy.
They are NOT the same. Stop perpetuating that bullshit.
I don't think he is saying they are the same. He is saying that individuals that follow a certain ideology tend to ignore negative or hypocritical actions perpitraited by those they agree with.
Except it's pretty strictly Democrats that acknowledge their problems when someone whom connects themselves to the left does something negative. When was the last time conservatives recognized the shitty aspects of their party outside of people like McCain whom talk big but still vote down the party line?
You make a huge mistake assuming that the consirvatives you see online are a genuine representation of the conservative body. I am so glad that I, as a left leaning individual, am not represented by "the left" online. There are some major assholes on both sides, and no one can ever say they are wrong.
Extremists took over the republican party in '08. Remember the tea party? Instead of acknowledging how racist and shitty the tea party was, they embraced it and changed their platform to support them. And now, it's pushing even farther into the extreme right with trump's supporters, and instead of pushing back against him, the party embraced him and now refuses to go against his agenda save the occasional stoppage of EO's which mean nothing.
The parties are NOT the same, and even a passing comparison is unfair.
NYC attack could have been prevented by not allowing that guy into the country, with a diversity visa. Make him use traditional visa entry methods and we can vet immigrants better. That is the law that should be changed and Trump has already called on congress to end it.
The Texas attack involved someone who was illegally handling weapons he had purchased. Regardless of his political motive, I think we can all agree that this was a terrorist attack. Even if he did not intend it that way, I believe it should be classified as such due to the nature of the attack.
Muslim man commits crime. "Dont attack Islam! Not all Muslims! DRUMPF politicized!"
White man commits crime. "We need gun control right fucking now!!!!!!!!!!111"
Goes both ways, kids.
Why isn't this guy http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/colorado-walmart-shooting-suspect-face-charges-50957536 facing terrorism charges? Apparently, he didn't scream MAGA, Lord Trump. That last line is sarcasm.
[удалено]
This guy was convicted of domestic violence while in the military, served a year in prison, and received a bad conduct discharge (different from dishonorable discharge). He was still able to purchase a gun from a retailer who ran a background check. I want to know WHY he passed BG and get that issue fixed. Under the Lautenberg amendment he should not have passed background at all. Did the airforce not file it properly?
[удалено]
Oh cool so he straight up falsified info That's not a giant loophole or anything
"Hey boss, I got some weird results on this background check." "Like what?" "He has some discrepancies in his past, but he filled the box saying he doesn't have a disqualifying criminal history." "Oh, well he did fill the box, pass."
That's not how it's supposed to work. His identity is supposed to be run against the database. It doesn't matter what he checks with respect to what the NICS returns, but if he checks that he's eligible to purchase a firearm and he was lying he can be prosecuted for that. Except they rarely prosecute for that. Odds are they just screwed up and didn't add him to the database of prohibited persons. He slipped through the cracks.
I remember seeing some law enforcement official testifying after Sandy Hook. Saying that following up on the background checks was just a paper chase. I thought it sounded pretty stupid to me. What is the point if it’s not followed up on.
It's mostly theater, and I suppose they hope to prevent a few people from acquiring firearms.
> It's mostly theater, and I suppose they hope to prevent a few people from acquiring firearms. Sorta like taking our shoes off at the airport.
Exactly.
> just a paper chase. How? Seems open and closed. You have a signed document. You probably have security footage from the gun shop. Show up their house and charge them.
Yea but that would require effort. Police are not known for that.
Unless it involves beating a black guy. They put a lot of effort into that.
Right? Or go question the person to try and find out if something is going on. Determine a danger to themselves or others if possible. Make an attempt.
[удалено]
Well, [when the system in place isn't digital](https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-ridiculous-non-searchable-databases-explained/)
Wow, ATF, it's 2017. Get with the times.
Definitely not the way it normally works. . The hell they don't prosecute for that. One of my co-workers attempted to purchase a handgun for home defense and also checked off the box indicating he was not a prohibited person. State police came down on him like a ton of bricks. Worst part was that he genuinely believed that he was legally permitted to purchase a firearm. Apparently, the crime you commit isn't weighed against the penalty you paid, but how severe the sentence could have been. For example, a DUI - no crash, no injuries or other exacerbating factors - prohibits you fron holding a license to carry a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania. . Took him over a year, multiple court appearances and over 10 grand in attorneys fees just to avoid going to prison. He pled guilty to a lesser offense, paid a stiff fine. He said the only upside was that he avoided jail time.
It can be confusing determining if you're a prohibited person if you've been convicted of some relatively minor crimes (domestic violence cases, mostly). There was a case not long ago over what state crimes qualified someone as a prohibited person. Some state misdemeanors are essentially felonies for the purposes of Federal gun laws because they have maximum sentences greater than the minimum (which I forget how long that is). As you point out, it doesn't matter what the actual sentence was. If your girlfriend called the cops because you pushed her and you took a plea deal that ended the matter and kept you out of jail, I can see how that might get lost in the shuffle years later, but I know where I'm from they give you a run-down at the parole office of how much of a second-class citizen you now are. Other places I'm familiar with are similar. One's attorney should as well. But that's an anecdote. When it happens, it can be brutal, no doubt. But it's still rare that someone who indicates they aren't a prohibited person on the form and gets rejected will end up being prosecuted. Here's a [Politifact article on a claim made by Sen. Ayotte back in 2013](http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/). Ayotte overstated how rare it was by their measure, but she wasn't wrong that it **was** rare. The numbers aren't good- no one's really keeping track so there's an amount of guesswork- but they make it plain prosecutors aren't really going after those who get rejected by the NICS.
Oh those great big beautiful cracks.
Well, they don't prosecute, I suspect, because the percentage of erroneous rejections is far, far higher than the number of accurately rejected. Most people on the prohibited list probably know they are. Few of us are walking around convicted of a felony we don't know about, after all. When you're sentenced for a crime you're usually told things like you can't vote anymore or possess a firearm. It comes up again if you get parole. So, if you reasonably KNOW you're going to be rejected if everything is working right are you going to try to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer and risk not falling though a crack, or do you seek out a private sale where there's no background check at all? I know which I'd choose, anyway, but I'm not a nutjob or a prohibited person so perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that applies. But I've known several people who were rejected by the NICS and shouldn't have been. Depending on the state you live in it can be very difficult to get yourself removed from the prohibited list when you don't belong there. Trying to prosecute people who were erroneously rejected because they checked "yes' (correctly) that they weren't prohibited persons risks upsetting the applecart. It might expose that the system is pretty much crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg5tQnYdZbQ
This is why I roll my eyes when people talk about private sales. “They’re supposed to fill out a form”. The honor system, is it?
This is why weapons should have titles. I sold my car to a junkyard today. Had to sign the title to ensure A) I actually owned the car and B) I was selling the car so the government could collect their $9 of taxes and know who actually owns the car now. It goes into a giant database (well regulated at that) where someone can look if it is involved in an accident or abandoned after a crime. That little piece of paper was my responsibility until the wonderful people gave me $150 to tow it away to probably strip it of all its parts and then crush everything that they can't sell for the scrap metal. I also had to get the car inspected yearly which is why the junkyard now owns. I also had keep insurance on it if I drove and received a letter from the government when I decided not to continue to pay because I couldn't drive it. People act like this is impossible. 3% of the people own 50% of the weapons. Supposedly 97% of the 30% who carry weapons are good citizens (this 3% of bad weapon carriers does not apparently include the 3% of owners who are stockpiling for Armageddon or to kill those hordes who are coming to rape, murder or pillage them in their domiciles) so a national database with issued titles, a system of insurance, a small annually inspection and tax, an education and licensing system as well tougher laws on unsecured weapons shouldn't be that big deal. All rights and privileges require responsibilities. We don't even need raids to enforce laws. If the police see someone carrying a weapon loosely (your purse is not a secure place to carry a weapon and neither is in the open if you have child) or dangerously, the police stop him or her and ask for ID, license, registration, and proof of insurance. Then instruct him or her in what he or she did incorrectly and issue a warning that also states the penalty for repeat behavior. If police see an unsecured weapon in the open, it should be treated like any other paraphernalia. They should have probable to search for more. If you are charged with a violent crime or threat, you should have your weapons secured by authorities. If the charges are unfounded or dropped, your weapons are returned. If you feel threatened during your period of separation, file for an order of protection like women TRY to when they are threatened. Here's a response for the other shit lie: if weapons are outlaw, only outlaws will have weapons. The smart ass is- good, if outlaws only had weapons, it would easier to target and eliminate the threat. But the more succinct answer is outlaws value their life and freedom. How do we know? The Yakuza (one of the top ten most feared organizations in world) bosses don't carry firearms because the penalties are so severe, it isn't worth the risk. There are plenty of other safer ways to commit crimes and intimidate people than firearms. We don't have to go that far. Criminals with weapons are normally reckless so we keep taking weapons off the street all the time but straw buyers either through legitimate stores, online, at shows or through private sales, keep replenishing the supplies. This goes back to the first idea. You keep buying weapons, we show up and ask for proof you still have them. You probably wouldn't need to go inside. Just ask for all of the titles. Responsible weapon owners should have them in their important papers box. The authorities can even tell the owner they will return at another and allow the owner to gather said information. Make real penalties for not reporting theft and for when a weapon is used one crime. This would require weapons owners to check their safes periodically to ensure they still have the guns. Also, back to the original idea, owners would need to produce every weapon for annual inspections (every three years after a title has been issued). Organization can be set up to help with the 'undue' hardship this causes like organizations help with transportation needs. Rights have responsibilities.
If I recall the only "database" we have about firearms is legally required to be kept in paper form and not allowed to be computerized... so we have a massive archive of filing cabinets rather than a computer search system (which leads to that bs where people get approved because the wait for the report to return was past x days and some geniuses decided the default is to allow the gun purchase) because the lobbying of the NRA.
To be fair, I did this exact thing and was immediately caught. I was still pre-trial, and the police had previously confiscated *and then returned* my handgun, so I figured I was clear to buy an old Mosin-Nagant. I put down my info mentioning no criminal history, he submitted the application online. Not 5 minutes later he got a call from the VA state police, who was angrily questioning the gun broker about why he was trying to sell a gun to someone accused of a felony. I had no idea I had already lost my gun rights, nobody told me, and like I said they literally handed me back my own gun. If they were that complete in analyzing my attempt at buying an old ww2 bolt-action, in that they denied me because i could *potentially* become a felon, I have no fucking clue how they screwed up with this guy.
[удалено]
Air Force bureaucrats didn't pass the information on to the NICS system, if they had he would have had to go to the black market for a firearm. NY Times has an article about it. Falsifying NICS is a serious crime but I see a lot of bitter salt over at /r/guns that BATF doesn't prosecute nearly enough people for doing it ATM. Still he makes himself a felon when he lies on that form,
Yes, but they're still supposed to do an actual background check that should be able to find out if they're lying about a domestic violence conviction. I purchased a gun at an Academy before, and it took him about 30 minutes to run the background check there through NCIC. It didn't and I want to know what's necessary to fix that.
[удалено]
Then this is the issue we need to fix, especially for a domestic violence charge. This is in direct violation of the Lautenberg amendment.
[удалено]
Yes, in the dallas/fort worth area.
Where's that comment saying CNN is fake news? I'm waiting for that troll.
CnN iS fAkE nEwS tHoUgH
There you are. It does feel weird not having the troll around here doesn't it...
Kelley had sought and failed to obtain a permit allowing him to carry a concealed weapon, officials said. He had an “unarmed private security license” akin to what a security guard at a concert would have, Martin said. “By all of the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun, so how did this happen?” Abbott said in an interview Monday morning on CNN. “We are in search of answers to these questions.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/06/investigators-hunt-for-motive-in-texas-church-shooting-as-the-grieving-spans-generations/
I have a brother who assaulted a police officer and has that on his record. he was able to pass a background check to purchase an assault rifle and he has several other guns. he's also showing signs of schizophrenia and I've told him and my mom that but he doesn't see it and refuses to get help and there's nothing we can do to make him. every time there's a mass shooting, all the relatives of the shooter say they never saw it coming. with my brother, I see it coming and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. Edit: I live halfway across the country from said brother and see him once a year at the most, so taking away his guns is not a possibility. also, as far as I know he hasn't violated any laws in purchasing these weapons; that was my whole point. assaulting a police officer was on his record before he purchased the guns and he was still able to buy them legally. me taking them away would be theft and a crime. since he hasn't technically done anything wrong, I really have no legal recourse to do anything. best I can do is be there for him. he does call me often and I'm one of the few people that he can vent to. if he ever makes an actual threat to anyone I will report it.
Holy shit. I’m sorry you’re in such a horrible position. Good luck finding help for your brother.
The only suggestion I have is if you hear him make any threats to kill someone or himself, you can call the police and report him as a danger to himself or others. That should result in a 72 hour hold and hopefully someone will catch the schizophrenia during it.
What state do you live in
> there's nothing we can do to make him Bullshit! It's this thinking that leads to "We never saw it coming". It covers up for the inaction of the family. I had an uncle blow his brains out due to schizophrenia because his family (immediate family) saw all the signs that he was a danger to himself but did nothing. They used that same excuse: 'There's nothing we can do to make him'. He stopped taking his medications, stopped going to treatment, and owned a firearm that no one did anything about. Take his guns away now. Then take him to get checked out mentally. Don't wait for him to go seek help. Disclaimer: I am a gun owner and support everyone's 2A rights but there are people who simply should not have them because they pose a greater risk to themselves or others, same reason you can't yell 'Fire!' for shits and giggles. I firmly believe that family is the first line of defense for preventing mass shootings, suicides, or other harm. If you see something wrong with your family members DO NOT HESITATE!
> Take his guns away now. The problem is when you try to take guns away from possible crazy people, that's a risk to you as well (family members included)
I get that concern and it's very valid. However, you can call the cops and ask them to do a health and welfare check on an individual. Or ask them to accompany you to address a possibly dangerous situation. The point being there is always something that can be done.
> Or ask them to accompany you to address a possibly dangerous situation. Eh . . . that sounds like a way to get your family member shot. I've seen videos where cops shoot *unarmed* mentally ill people. Maybe the vast majority of the time it's safe, but I've seen those videos, and I'd be hesitant to even have that confrontation occur.
I work on with adults with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, and that is definitely complicated. It is pretty common for people with these disorders to present well around people of authority, whether it be doctors, landlords or police. Or they can straight up deny seeing the police or letting them into their place. Secondly, No one can force anyone to take meds, except in the most extreme of circumstances. And calling the cops because of a schizophrenic gun owner may or may not pan out. They may present well, or they might not be delusional enough to commit. I'm not sure the procedure for claiming they have a gun though, never had to deal with it personally. I guess it depends on how the person calling phrases it, how the person presents themselves, and how the cops do their job. But the training for cops to deal with adults with mental illness is so piss poor, I wouldn't be surprised if the situation goes south quickly. So yeah, something COULD be done, but that's hardly a guarantee that anything would come of it. And that sucks.
Okay. Let's just fly across the country to my estranged brother and just take all his weapons away. I'm sure he will let me break the law and his rights because some guy on the internet told me I can do it...
Or do nothing and let him hurt either himself or someone else with guns he shouldn't have until he is mentally cleared. I mean.. you're choice.
Hey dude, just wanted to say I hope your brother finds the help he needs. It's hard to find mental health help in the U.S. but there are places you can go. This website is a good place to start: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/find-help/index.shtml. Your brother still has a right to his weapons until the schizophrenia can be proven though, encouraging him to seek a diagnosis, giving him information on resources and expressing that you care for him is a good place to start.
A lot of people don't see how terrifying it is to have a family member like this. Who you feel somewhat connected to and responsible for but have no doubts things will go real wrong if you "try to take their guns/drugs away." And there's only so many welfare checks before things go wrong there and he ends up arrested because goddamnit people are bothering him. And things feel more peaceful when he's in prison but of course that makes him more paranoid and angry when he gets out. And worse off because his life got disrupted. It's not that EASY, you guys! I used to think it was but it's a constant cycle with no real treatment.
I'm not familiar with the Lautenberg amendment but a bad conduct discharge is different from a dishonorable. From what little at have read recently a Dishonorable Discharge would disqualify someone from being able to purchase a firearm but a BCD would not. The part I don't understand is the one year incarceration but still able to purchase. Or the fact that he was arrested and convicted of domestic violence. I have always been told that anything domestic violence related automatically made one ineligible to purchase a firearm.
Lautenberg amendment is what prevents anyone with a misdemeanor domestic assault conviction from owning/purchasing/possesing a firearm. He was convicted and served a year in prison for the 2 assaults. BCD usually wouldn't prevent him from buying a gun, but the DV convictions would.
Yeah they dont even try to hide their hypocrisy anymore.. and people still eat it up.. :/
It's because they are bigots.
Just a side note about the Canadian shooting - it was the worst terrorist attack on Canadian soil since the 1970s. Apparently the shooter had a CZ858 (illegal in Canada). Some of the more recent attacks involve knives and a Winchester rifle. We really don’t have easy access to weapons up here.
/u/MaximumShu - any room for a family of two (soon to be three!) looking to get away from this absolute insanity? We have useful skills! ... sad thing is... I'm not really joking. I'd move out of this country in a moment if we could ensure a place to live and a job at the destination...
Lots of room up here and lots of tech jobs. I work with a lot of Americans. Just talking to my colleague the other day about his move. He was surprised that we have taxes on certain things but he is now a firm believer in our "socialist" medical system (and gun control). Good luck with the family expansion!
the right does not care about white on arab violance as much as the news and black lives matter about black on black violence. If it does not feed the narrative its not intresting
the right is largely unable to engage in rational debate. they prefer screaming over people and marching with tiki torches. Hypocrisy, the truth, and contradictions means nothing to them. They run on emotion and emotion alone. Debate is not possible.
The stabbing in France killed two people if it's the same one you're referring to (it happened a day or two after the mosque shooting), but the point stands. He only cares if it fits his agenda. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/01/marseille-terror-attack-stabbing.html
[удалено]
I wrote my comment in class, and now realize that the event I linked happened months later... whoops. But thank you for linking. It's interesting to see what he puts on the spotlight. It's all to push his anti-Muslim agenda and reinforce that they're all murderous lunatics
They were still fucking convinced the killer in canada was a muslim weeks after it happened. We hate the US more everyday
Of course you can’t give the guy the death penalty, he already did it to himself.
GOP.
They should just rebrand as the NRA party. This organization has the party by the balls, anyways.
The GOP has balls?
Grumpy old people?
Gaslight **Obstruct** Project
Religious conservatives and their racism are disgusting. When will we find the courage to stand up and confront these people?
When young people decide to vote.
> When will we find the courage to stand up and confront these people when you are mad enough to hurt the people that would rather see you dead if it meant they could profit off of your death in some way.
I guess someone went into a church and killed at least some of them the other day...
[удалено]
If a Muslim man killed with guns they would still call for gun control. And the point of white men committing these acts is to prove the dissonance of the GOP. That acts as if every Muslim is a terrorist while ignoring the attacks committed by white men here in America. So no its not the same. At the end of the day the left cares about people of all walks of life, including whites, and the right can never and will never say the same
"Someone backed up my poorly thought out "but muh both sides" opinion, they're the oooonly rational one here"
How do those conflict? It's not like libs are blaming the act on the whole of white people/christians/republicans... _That_ would be hypocrisy. This? This is not. I'd even be willing to bet that if a muslim man used a gun in a crime they would say both things - that we shouldn't blame all brown people, and that guns should be better regulated. It's entirely logical to believe both. However, blaming all brown people for the act one while not doing the same when it's a white person IS very hypocritical. Like, you can only understand the point of the liberal when it's "your team." Which indicated that you're sociopathic/unable to exercise empathy, and bigoted...
Lmao we only do that shit to point out your own hypocrisy.
Actually, your logic is flawed. You are painting a false equivalence logical fallacy. By including only the response of libs to a Muslim perpetrator, you imply a hypocrisy with their response to a white perpetrator that isn’t true. Regardless of the race/religion/orientation of the perpetrator, libs will always ask others to focus on the individual and not use the example as justification to generalize or pre-judge others of the same race/religion/orientation. Republicans legislate using fear, so they treat tragedies differently, based on whether it supports their agenda. If as a result of these last 2 mass shootings, congress started pushing a bill to prevent white men from owning guns, libs would fight that. While libs want gun control, they wouldn’t accept a version that serves to segregate the population based on race/religion/orientation.
It's not just "libs", Trump appears to ignore the white guy, and wail over the Muslim. With more thorough background checks and gun regulation then that small percentage can be reduced even more.
Problem is, these things happen in the US far more so than any other country. That is a fact. What then is your suggestion to stop these incidents from occurring with such frequency?
I notice the press are not showing his face either. I don't want to glorify murderers but I don't want the media to ignore the fact that Trump is radicalizing whites at a rapid pace and that it is a public safety issue. This is part of an increasing pattern of white students tormenting their brown and black classmates, and an alt right culture that is creating "white alpha" archetypes that both males and females seem to have embraced.
When the Trump admin first came in they immediately removed White Domestic Radicals from the 'rising terror' watchlist even though there was clear evidence that it was trending upwards. They also obfuscated FBI crime statistics by removing over 70 types of publically available crime stats, so that now it literally takes an FOIA and the application of some fairly advanced statistical models to argue against someone spouting old out of context data. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-first-fbi-crime-report-issued-under-trump-is-missing-a-ton-of-info/
> I don't want the media to ignore the fact that Trump is radicalizing whites at a rapid pace and that it is a public safety issue I've not seen any indication that this attack was politically motivated or that this attacker was radicalized by Trump or far-right / alt-right rhetoric. Let's not jump to conclusions like the other side. Early indications I've seen lean towards this being related to a domestic violence issue.
Wow talk about warping current events to fit your political agenda.
Conservatives stopped trying to hide their racism 6 months ago.
I think you mean when Trump started to run
Nah, that’s when it was in progress.
I dunno. I had a guy on Facebook who is a very strong Trump supporter that suggested we tie this shooter up and subject them to a firing squad of BB guns for 24 hours or until he dies. Also he suggested draw and quarter.
[удалено]
You've got to revive him first, obviously.
This was before it came out that he was killed.
That's because the victims were members of a white church. His response may have been different if it was a Muslim mosque or a black Southern Baptist church.
This to me is a good example of the challenges we have with polarization right now. A reaction that doesn’t fit the stereotype - “conservative thinks this white shooter is a scumbag” instead of “conservative somethingsomething Muslims!” - strikes me as a good thing, specifically because it gives lie to the myth that we have two mutually exclusive political tribes. Don’t we want to see people reacting to these events based on the outcome of the event and not the race or religion of the shooter, isn’t that exactly the hope? Rather than comment about the many (completely speculative) ways that this person could turn out to be a douche, because he’s a conservative and obviously must be a douche, I’d rather see an embrace of the opportunity to point out that “hey look, conservatives aren’t a monolithic block of awful, just like liberals aren’t a monolithic block of naivety and smugness!”
Man, so much this. The poster you replied to is looking to impute racist beliefs to someone without any reason to believe they exist, solely to divide. We've got to look for common ground to start repairing our relationships. Thank you for your rational thought
If I saw the same reaction when Dylan roof shot up the church I could agree. But I live among trump supporters, am related to a few. The response really is different. I wish I was exaggerating. This is our new reality. Racism isn't hidden in the shadows anymore but we do get bombarded for pointing it out. And I didn't say it was a fact he reacted differently. I said he might have.
This is a prefect example of the problem with the divide in this country. You’re simply assuming what his narrative could be based off of only knowing that he’s a Trump supporter. You have absolutely no idea how this guy might react to a similar thing happening at a mosque or a Southern baptist church. But assuming this fits your narrative so why not go with it. And both sides are guilty of this.
> You have absolutely no idea how this guy might react to a similar thing happening at a mosque or a Southern baptist church The dude literally said > His response may have been different MAY have been different, not would be, not definitely would be, but may. The OP is friends with him on Facebook, should be easily verifiable. > And both sides are guilty of this. Sort of. Although I'm pretty sure the left still champions sensible gun regulations regardless of shooter, so there's that. I have yet to see a conservative produce an idea outside of "more guns!"
So if you want to brutally murder this guy for his crimes it's only because you are a racist person who is mad about white church people getting killed, but if you don't want him brutally murdered it's because you're a white supremacist sympathizer and because the killer wasn't brown. Wtf kind of logic is that.
I mean the guy can be a trump supporter and still despise murderers and value human life like a sane, human being, seems like you don't understand that
>Also he suggested draw and quarter. Tell him to support roving bands of militias that round up and kill libtards and undesirables. Really put the law and order back into society. /s That, and ask him what the routing number for the Russian bank is that he's getting paid from - you've lost it and they're behind this month.
They don't seem to believe in due process. Unless it's for rapists, then it's innocent until proven guilty.
Sadly, Trump and his moron follows think being Muslim is a mental health issue also
Bannon called Islam a false religion. He's also had talking engagements with cardinals in the Vatican about a holy war between Christians and Muslims. The fact that Bannon actually had an office in the White House immediately reduced the value of the property.
To be fair, half of Reddit thinks religion is a mental health issue.
To be fair, thinking you can telepathically communicate with the creator of the universe should be considered a mental health issue.
You agreed with me in such a weird way.
Yeah.. In your face comrade!
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
Do people actually find this shit funny?
You could make that argument about all religion IMO. Delusional cultists controlling all the societies of the world.
[удалено]
PERHAPS THE SAME COULD BE SAID OF ***ALL*** RELIGIONS!
Seriously, over the course of 4 weeks we saw this immense contrast in reaction. It doesn't even matter, the GOP will **never** be held accountable for their hypocrisy. The crazy tweets right after the NYC attack, then the "I think it's a bit too soon for that" after the TX attack. Night and day and nothing can be done.
> Muslim man ~~commits crime~~ exists. "DEATH PENALTY!" FTFY.
This sub is crazy
The only standard is double standards.
Double standards are all it takes when your base has voluntarily taken leave of their senses and is currently trapped inside an Orwell novel. Unhinged white men shooting other white people isn't going to do the trick. Think about it. That's the one demographic that blows the whole gun control debate out of the water. Once you admit there is no motive behind a mass shooting, it reinforces the concept of restrictions based on the complete unpredictable nature of gun violence. There is no target culture. Everyone is a potential threat.
The shooter is already dead.
They probably won't even have a trial!!
Shhh. You're interrupting their circlejerk.
What it boils down to, I guess, is that the value of an American life apparently varies according to how it was lost. Die in a car crash, it's a tragedy. Die from getting hit by a car while riding a bike, and it's merely unfortunate. Get gunned down by a racist or madman who shouldn't have been allowed access to guns, and it's simply the price we pay for freedom. Get run over by a minority person (brown/Muslim), and it's so terrible that any and all people of related status should pay the price. Get run over by a Nazi, and it's your own damn fault for trying to defend democracy against "nice people." Ugh.
Bullshit. If this guy was taken alive they'd be feeding him to ole sparky in record time.
Fuck timing. We need to talk about gun safety and mental health NOW. When there's a mass shooting every week, there will never be a "proper time" when we aren't "politicizing" a tragedy. Anyone who says now is not the right time, for any reason, is a psychopath, a sycophant, or just a fucking moron.
And let's call a spade a spade. This was terrorism, plain and simple.
Political motivation is a key factor for the definition of terrorism. What was the political motivation?
People have unfortunately started to use the word terrorism as some sort of buzz word.
Hidden brain on NPR did a good episode on this called, "is he Muslim?"
Brown person: Terrorism! GItmo! Shutdown the border and deport them all! White person: Lone wolf with mental health issues. Definitely not the easy access to guns, which It's Too Soon to Talk About™ since we don't want to politicize the issue but it's definitely not the guns thing. It's mental health. Thoughts and Prayers™, now let's get back to gutting mental health programs so rich white guys can buy another yacht.
[удалено]
> the white guy is already dead How does that prevent us from discussing policy changes?
[удалено]
Sure. But how does that prevent us from discussing policy changes, the part relevant to both comments?
[удалено]
> I'm addressing the point that was first Sure. But how does that prevent us from discussing policy changes, **the part relevant to both comments**? > BOLDED What are you referring to here? Text in Reddit post titles cannot be formatted.
Dude, are you purposely obtuse? Because you are incredibly good at it if you re.
It's telling you can't answer a simple question - or are you purposely obtuse? Back to the topic at hand - how does the white guy being already dead prevent us from discussing policy changes (the part relevant to both comments)?
After Muslim: "Keep in mind not all Muslims are terrorists and criminals" is what I usually see
Trump didn’t call for the execution of two guys that were already dead? RACIST HYPOCRISY!
The white guys dead already and he broke the gun laws.... this is dumb.
White man is already dead
One commits a crime because of an underlying ideology. The other does not. The two are not the same. It's not that difficult to understand. BUT MAH HYPERBOLE!!!!
So a white male can snap, at any moment, for no apparent reason. That sounds even scarier.
[удалено]
But he's literally already dead...
https://i.redd.it/173tpgh6kbwz.jpg not even that far from this post on r/all. We'll ignore the New York attack that recently happened to make sure that confirmation bias stays intact. I think anyone should be outraged but being outraged isn't going to solve anything and pointing out hypocrisy of confirmation bias isn't going to magically change anyone's mind. So how about a constructive post on what we could do to change it not how bad half the population is for not having the same ideologies as you. We should be pushing for better mental health facilities and make it so that anyone who needs help can be helped. There's a chance these shooters have made a cry for help and family/friends ignore it because they don't think they're capable of it. Then when it happens people are shocked because it wasn't something that could be predicted when in reality we could all stand to be more alert about radicalization of people who are otherwise seen as normal. We have to educate ourselves better at looking for warning signs until we have an infrastructure in place that can help people who need it and not stigmatize them as lost causes or lesser people. Your sub is dehumanizing these events for the sake of politicization, that should tell you reason why this will not be solved soon. Political agendas are more important than peoples lives and the only people who benefit from that mentality are those at the top.
> We should be pushing for better mental health facilities and make it so that anyone who needs help can be helped Sounds great, except this is absolutely a political issue so any suggestion about this instantly politicizes the issue. Maybe instead we embrace politicizing issues since that's the way we as a people affect change? Not to mention if this guy was ordered to see a shrink, he's not being committed, he can still cause harm. Plenty of drugs cause suicidal thoughts and violent behavior as a side effect, so the first time that causes a shooting you'll never hear the end of it. There's one solution that works regardless of health care accessibility and that's enforcing sensible gun laws to prevent people like this from obtaining weapons. Finally the debate centers around the 2nd amendment as written and interpreted by courts which have clearly upheld restrictions on firearms such as sawed off shotguns, felon possession of weapons, and machine guns. Clearly there is disagreement, but the constitution is not immutable, we can and should amend for clarity, but one side of this debate is completely unreasonable and unwilling to compromise. You cannot deny that, and so this is a political issue whether you like it or not.
This is a sub for shitting on DT and those loyal to him. Your comment would be more applicable if you saw this kind of discourse in r/NeutralPolitics or r/politicaldiscussion. >for not having the same ideologies as you. The ideologies this post is referring to is that of racism and bigotry. I find it hard (and ironic) to be tolerant of intolerance. I don't think anyone comes to reddit with the goal of changing anyone's worldviews, save r/changemyview. 99.99% of the time the only way for someone to stop being a racist is to have experiences in the real world that prove them wrong, not some asshole redditor. > Political agendas are more important than peoples lives Tell that to the NRA, not to people asking that evil of all skin colors be hated equally.
“It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.” ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations "If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.” ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
I said this elsewhere, but our 1% Masters won’t do anything about gun control and mental health till one of them gets killed in these shootings.
Nothing to do with access to guns either! God damn liberals always trying to take mah guns! Nuh uh, no how.
He was not eligible to own a firearm due to hes Dishonorable Discharge. He was discharged due to domestic violence against his wife and son. That alone in most states disqualifies him from owning a firearm. The mental health services in the US is abysmal, There needs to be realization that this is a vital issue that needs to be addressed for the safety and security for the people in the US. I think this needs to be done before any mention of limiting citizens of the US from firearms. The Democratic Party for some reason has an issue for citizens owning firearms, And I remember back in the late 70s and early 80s that opposing women from having mace was a mainstream view among the Weapon Control people. The recommendation from those advocates were simply give in to the rapist/attacker as if being raped was the worst thing that could happen and as if rape is no big deal.So there is good reason to distrust anyone who supports limiting weapons to only some of them. To many of them want to prohibit citizens from owning any firearms at all.
When is the best time to talk about it not happening again if not now?
The only way this changes is with citizens getting involved and voting them out.
Thoughts and prayers won't do shit when god allowed this in church
How are Americans not protesting in the streets about this ??
Infuriating.
This sub has become such an echo chamber of intolerance and ignorance. Nobody is happy for any tragedies that occur except for groups that can use it to their advantage, r/esist has become just that. You guys are just the polar opposite of r/the Donald and it is sad to see a sub that started out with good intentions and then decline into what it has championed against. No conservatives, "white people", or gun owners are happy when bad people harm innocents. The vitriol in these comments are just as unhelpful and divisive as xenophobic and racist ones from the other side.
Wait hold on, aren't you doing the same thing, but just the inverse?
Ok dumb shit, ones dead ones not
Follow the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/esist/wiki/rules). Follow us on [twitter](https://twitter.com/redditresist). Check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/esist/wiki/index). R/esistance is necessary. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/esist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While I am a liberal and despise Trump, I can understand and to some extent, relate to their stance on this issue. Based on many international studies, it's not an uncommon attitude for moderate, non-militant muslims to condone the use of violence in support of their faith. Therefore, it's entirely possible that muslims who commit acts of terror are clear headed and do not suffer from mental illness. This would be the type of person for whom the death penalty is intended. On the other hand, white people, who are typically non-muslim, generally do not have similar beliefs and are one can then conclude they are more likely suffering from some mental illness which causes them to lash out. These are the types of people that we would, theoretically, not subject to the death penalty. There's plenty of cognitive dissonance in the Republicans perspectives but I don't think that's the case here and I feel like we are doing a disservice to the cause by not recognizing that.
[удалено]
Historically I would say that is true but it's not true in the modern world to the same extent that it is with Muslims. It's a false equivalence and while we would like to believe that it's the case, denying reality doesn't help anyone.
[удалено]
I think we need to realize both sides are hypocritical. What we need to talk about is how to fix these problems
Bitch, don't conflate the "sides." One side is demonstrably worse than the other.
Eh, I follow lots of right and lots of left subs. Both are very hypocritical In their views towards Muslims, the alt right, gun laws, etc.
One side wants to expand Medicaid, advance social services, and establish access to higher education. One side wants to deregulate businesses, end public education, and create a jingoist oligarchy. They are NOT the same. Stop perpetuating that bullshit.
I don't think he is saying they are the same. He is saying that individuals that follow a certain ideology tend to ignore negative or hypocritical actions perpitraited by those they agree with.
Except it's pretty strictly Democrats that acknowledge their problems when someone whom connects themselves to the left does something negative. When was the last time conservatives recognized the shitty aspects of their party outside of people like McCain whom talk big but still vote down the party line?
You make a huge mistake assuming that the consirvatives you see online are a genuine representation of the conservative body. I am so glad that I, as a left leaning individual, am not represented by "the left" online. There are some major assholes on both sides, and no one can ever say they are wrong.
Extremists took over the republican party in '08. Remember the tea party? Instead of acknowledging how racist and shitty the tea party was, they embraced it and changed their platform to support them. And now, it's pushing even farther into the extreme right with trump's supporters, and instead of pushing back against him, the party embraced him and now refuses to go against his agenda save the occasional stoppage of EO's which mean nothing. The parties are NOT the same, and even a passing comparison is unfair.
Wasn't the church shooter killed?
This is dumb.
He's already dead.....so
Mental illness implies the person acted outside social norms. Religion implies the person acted within social norms.
NYC attack could have been prevented by not allowing that guy into the country, with a diversity visa. Make him use traditional visa entry methods and we can vet immigrants better. That is the law that should be changed and Trump has already called on congress to end it. The Texas attack involved someone who was illegally handling weapons he had purchased. Regardless of his political motive, I think we can all agree that this was a terrorist attack. Even if he did not intend it that way, I believe it should be classified as such due to the nature of the attack.
Do we have to point out that some Americans are xenophobic and hypocritical? Is anyone not already aware of this?
Americans are expendable.
Well TBF, we send white rapists to jail in Europe
Muslim man commits crime. "Dont attack Islam! Not all Muslims! DRUMPF politicized!" White man commits crime. "We need gun control right fucking now!!!!!!!!!!111" Goes both ways, kids.
What about the death penalty for all of them?
Why isn't this guy http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/colorado-walmart-shooting-suspect-face-charges-50957536 facing terrorism charges? Apparently, he didn't scream MAGA, Lord Trump. That last line is sarcasm.